suggests that FMS reduces fuel sensitivity to productivity variability, resulting in more consistent and efficient energy use. (a) (b) Figure 7 - Correlation diagram versus Fuel Ratio: (a) Truck productivity, (b) Digger productivity Figure 8 shows that FMS significantly improves production cost efficiency. Alpha achieved a 28% cost reduction compared to Bravo, while Charlie recorded a consistent 15% reduction after FMS adoption, confirming stronger cost benefits in large-scale mining operations. (a) (b) Figure 8 - Cost saving comparison: (a) Bravo and alpha, (b) Charlie Figure 9 shows cost efficiency gains from FMS, which are closely tied to energy use; Table 2 confirms that, at constant production and haul distance, FMS reduces fuel consumption, energy intensity (GJ/ton), and CO₂e per ton, delivering both economic and ESG benefits. Table 2 - Comparison of Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions between two methods. Parameter Units No FMS FMS Improveme nt Annual production Ton Moved 11.000. 000 11.000.0 00 0% Average Distance Km 2.6 2.6 0% Annual Fuel Consumption Alpha & Charlie Liter 9,948,9 94 6,912,64 7 31% Annual Energy Consumption GJ 377,06 7 261,989 31% Total Emissions Ton CO₂e 29,184. 98 20,277.9 7 31% Charlie non-FMS Charlie with FMS Brav o Alph a
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2